Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 16

Thread: Withdrawal Will Not Be Another Defeat Like Vietnam

  1. #1 | Top
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Posts
    3,163
    Thanks
    892
    Thanked 400 Times in 358 Posts
    Groans
    51
    Groaned 98 Times in 85 Posts

    Default Withdrawal Will Not Be Another Defeat Like Vietnam

    Afghanistan: 'We have won the war, America has lost', say Taliban
    By Secunder Kermani and Mahfouz Zubaide
    BBC News, Balkh district
    Published 11 hours ago

    https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-56747158

    Make no mistake about it, the war in Afghanistan has always been a United Nations war. A military defeat is their defeat.

    United Nations Security Council resolution 1386, adopted unanimously on 20 December 2001, after reaffirming all resolutions on the situation in Afghanistan, particularly resolutions 1378 (2001) and 1383 (2001), the Council authorised the establishment of the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) to assist the Afghan Interim Authority in the maintenance of security in Kabul and surrounding areas. It was the final Security Council resolution adopted in 2001.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_Resolution_1386

    Democrats will never admit that the United Nations lost the war in Afghanistan. Regardless of how media spins it, or how many Americans died fighting in a United Nations war, the New World Order crowd will never allow the United Nations to take the blame for a military defeat:




    The New World Order crowd will even kick their pet monkey, China Joe Biden, under the bus before they tarnish the U.N.’s war record.


    Biden's troop withdrawal plan marked by sobering concern: The Note
    ByAveri Harper ,Alisa Wiersema, andKendall Karson
    April 15, 2021, 6:01 AM

    https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/bide...ry?id=77072223

    Failed foreign policy in Afghanistan is one more reason Biden was never right about anything. Remember that then-Senator Joe Biden was a leading advocate for fighting a United Nations war in Afghanistan.

    Lest I be misinterpreted, Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Iraq all met the preemptive war of self-defense criterion. In short: War policy based on what the United Nations dictates is the problem —— not wars of self-defense. Biden was always too stupid to know the difference. You can bet the family jewels that Xi Jingping knows the difference. That is why they are laughing at a different joke:


    NOTE: President Truman outsmarted Communists in the Korean War when the Soviet Union did not show for the one and only time they missed a Security Council meeting. Also note that the U.N. opposed the war in Vietnam.

    Democrats always wanted out of Iraq, but not out of Afghanistan. That is because the Afghanistan coalition is a U.N.-approved military intervention. Leading Democrats screaming about their phoney concerns for American lives lost in Iraq made me sick because I know that they never gave a damn about how many Americans are killed fighting for a U.N. in Afghanistan.

    Incidentally, the Taliban hanged Afghanistan’s Communist president in 1996, but I do not think that one good act entitles all Muslims to the Joe McCarthy Anti-Communism Award.

    Muslims honed their insurgency skills in Algeria. Since 1962 Muslims believe they will always have occupying troops to attack. Radical Islamists may think they have perfected the ultimate battle strategy against an occupying force. But what if there is no occupation? What do they do then? My point is this: Just level those damn countries, starve them out, use every weapon in our arsenal and be done with it. All of those douche bags combined are not worth the life of one American killed in occupying the country of a sworn enemy for the United Nations.

    America used a small percentage of its military might and WEAPONRY in Iraq and Afghanistan. Should it ever come to an all-out war this country fights to win instead of fighting PEACE WITHOUT VICTORY wars like Korea, Vietnam, and Iraq type wars, it would not take long to defeat an enemy country, or countries, so long as the U.S. military is fighting for their country not fighting for the U.N.’s global agenda.

    Last edited by Flanders; 04-15-2021 at 10:40 AM.
    The basic test of freedom is perhaps less in what we are free to do than in what we are free not to do. It is the freedom to refrain, withdraw and abstain which makes a totalitarian regime impossible. Eric Hoffer

  2. #2 | Top
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Posts
    3,163
    Thanks
    892
    Thanked 400 Times in 358 Posts
    Groans
    51
    Groaned 98 Times in 85 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Flanders View Post
    Make no mistake about it, the war in Afghanistan has always been a United Nations war. A military defeat is their defeat.


    United Nations Security Council resolution 1386, adopted unanimously on 20 December 2001, after reaffirming all resolutions on the situation in Afghanistan, particularly resolutions 1378 (2001) and 1383 (2001), the Council authorised the establishment of the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) to assist the Afghan Interim Authority in the maintenance of security in Kabul and surrounding areas. It was the final Security Council resolution adopted in 2001.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United...esolution_1386
    Read the article and you will see the word “We” 21 times and “NATO” 4 times. You will not find the United Nations mentioned. It makes me wonder why presidential candidate Buchanan defended the Southern border since the U.N. dictates this country’s immigration policies:



    "It is time to end the forever war."

    So said President Joe Biden in his announcement that, as of Sept. 11, the 20th anniversary of the attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon, all U.S. troops will be gone from Afghanistan.

    The longest war in our history, which cost 2,400 dead, 20,000 wounded and $2 trillion, is ending -- but only for Americans, not Afghans.

    Secretary of State Antony Blinken assured our NATO allies in Brussels that we are all leaving with our mission accomplished:

    "Together we went into Afghanistan to deal with those who attacked us and to make sure that Afghanistan would not again become a haven for terrorists who might attack any of us.

    "We have achieved the goals we set out to achieve," the secretary said. "Now it's time to bring our forces home."

    But while the U.S. military did not lose a major battle, we Americans did not win this war. Our enemies are stronger, and they control more territory today than they have since their overthrow in 2001.

    They have reconstituted themselves under fire, control half of the country and can cut roads to the capital of Kabul. And in our mission to build a democratic Afghanistan that could sustain itself long after we depart, we failed.

    And we have no guarantee al-Qaida will not reestablish itself in Afghanistan. For the most probable successors to the regime we are leaving behind are the same Taliban we drove from power in 2001.

    And while the Taliban did not defeat us, they have bled the Afghan army we helped to create and train, and outlasted the United States and a NATO alliance that emerged victorious from a 40-year cold war with the Soviet Empire.

    As we depart Afghanistan before summer's end, the 7,500 NATO troops there will be leaving with us. That this is viewed as no strategic victory may be seen from the reaction of those who most consistently supported the war, conservative Republican senators.

    Said Majority Leader Mitch McConnell of Biden's announcement:

    "Precipitously withdrawing U.S. forces from Afghanistan is a grave mistake. ...Foreign terrorists will not leave the United States alone simply because our politicians have grown tired of taking the fight to them."

    Said Lindsey Graham:

    "It is insane to withdraw at this time given the conditions that exist on the ground in Afghanistan. ...A full withdrawal from Afghanistan is dumber than dirt and devilishly dangerous...President Biden will have, in essence, canceled an insurance policy against another 9/11."

    Said the ranking Republican on armed services, Jim Inhofe:

    "No one wants a forever war, but...any withdrawal must be conditions-based. Arbitrary deadlines would likely put our troops in danger, jeopardize all the progress we've made...lead to civil war in Afghanistan -- and create a breeding ground for international terrorists."

    But if we failed in Afghanistan, why did we fail?

    Our enemies, the Taliban, motivated by a religious faith many would call fanaticism, were more willing to sacrifice, suffer, fight, bleed and die for longer than we or our Afghan allies.

    The Taliban are Eric Hoffer's "True Believers."

    Also, it is their country, after all, not ours. It is everything to them, not so much to us. They are steeped in the traditional Afghan hostility to foreigners and hatred of those who come to their land to tell them how they should live and rule themselves.

    The Taliban captured the flags of anti-colonialism, nationalism and Islamic fundamentalism.
    Recommended

    There is talk that, should the Taliban topple the government, bring down the regime and engage in reprisals and atrocities, American troops might surge back in.

    My sense is no. When we go this time, we're gone for good. Like the Brits in the 19th century and Russians in the 20th, when we go, we will not return.

    Yet, Afghanistan is only one of the "forever wars" into which our interventionists plunged us that have proven so ruinous to the republic.

    The greatest blunder came in 2003, when George W. Bush was persuaded by the neoconservatives to invade Iraq and covert that country into America's model democracy for the Middle East.

    Our 18-year struggle in Iraq following the invasion of 2003 has proven even most costly in lives and treasure than the war in Afghanistan.

    After Iraq came the intervention in Syria's civil war to back rebels seeking to oust President Bashar Assad. After that came the U.S.-NATO intervention in the Libyan civil war and America's intervention on the side of Saudi Arabia in Yemen's civil war.

    For a generation now, we have been stomping barefoot on anthills and throwing rocks into bees' nests across the Middle and Near East.

    And to what avail?

    The nation-builders, the democratists, the liberal interventionists, the New World Order crowd are, today, being repudiated by Biden's decision to write off their 20-year project in the Hindu Kush.

    One wonders: Will they soon start calling Biden an isolationist?


    Biden Bids Farewell to a 'Forever War'
    Pat Buchanan
    Posted: Apr 16, 2021 12:01 AM

    https://townhall.com/columnists/patb...r-war-n2588020
    The basic test of freedom is perhaps less in what we are free to do than in what we are free not to do. It is the freedom to refrain, withdraw and abstain which makes a totalitarian regime impossible. Eric Hoffer

  3. #3 | Top
    Join Date
    Apr 2020
    Location
    Olympia, Wa
    Posts
    18,740
    Thanks
    1,203
    Thanked 5,314 Times in 4,323 Posts
    Groans
    1
    Groaned 209 Times in 198 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Inconsiderately Long.
    I am going to go standing up, with my flag flying high for what I believe in.

  4. #4 | Top
    Join Date
    Nov 2020
    Posts
    4,720
    Thanks
    900
    Thanked 2,270 Times in 1,453 Posts
    Groans
    176
    Groaned 335 Times in 325 Posts

    Default

    you can never win a war you should never have been in. dumbass.

  5. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Hoosier Daddy For This Post:

    guno (04-18-2021), no worries (04-16-2021)

  6. #5 | Top
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Posts
    3,163
    Thanks
    892
    Thanked 400 Times in 358 Posts
    Groans
    51
    Groaned 98 Times in 85 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Hoosier Daddy View Post
    you can never win a war you should never have been in. dumbass.
    To Hoosier Daddy: Not surprising come from a Democrat who decide which wars this country win —— or lose as in Vietnam.

    Incidentally dumbass, the U.N.’s Korean War is technically the longest war because it never ended thanks to President Wilson’s PEACE WITHOUT VICTORY war policy.


    And lets not forget the degenerate’s war:


    Note that President Clinton dared not use United Nations “peacekeepers” to kill Christians for Muslims in his Balkan Adventure; so he used NATO to sneak the U.N. in thru the backdoor. “U.N. Peacekeepers” are now entrenched in the Balkans.

    Incidentally, millions of Muslims poured into Europe after the Balkan War ended.

    XXXXX

    President Clinton’s use of NATO in his Balkan Adventure is a train wreck waiting to happen. More so because it originated with then-Senator Joe Biden.

    During the 2008 presidential campaign, Biden said that he was the catalyst that changed the conditions in the Balkans fronted by President Clinton. True, or untrue, Biden claimed he was the guy who told Bill Clinton what to do in Bosnia. If true, he told Clinton to use NATO forces to bomb Christians.

    https://www.justplainpolitics.com/sh...88#post2903288
    The basic test of freedom is perhaps less in what we are free to do than in what we are free not to do. It is the freedom to refrain, withdraw and abstain which makes a totalitarian regime impossible. Eric Hoffer

  7. #6 | Top
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    43,558
    Thanks
    2,144
    Thanked 4,998 Times in 3,942 Posts
    Groans
    12
    Groaned 287 Times in 265 Posts

    Default

    all recent wars are just oligarchs externalizing customer acquisition and resource costs onto the american taxpayer. and murdering them too.
    Morality is a set of attitudes and behaviors which facilitate voluntary, cooperative and mutually beneficial relationships. --AssHatZombie

    Obamagate is Operation Crossfire Hurricane

    internationalist fascism: the belief that the interests of multinational corporations should be the sole focus of all national trade policies.

    https://drjudyamikovits.com <-- max vax truth

  8. #7 | Top
    Join Date
    Sep 2019
    Posts
    1,376
    Thanks
    1
    Thanked 58 Times in 53 Posts
    Groans
    1
    Groaned 9 Times in 9 Posts

    Default

    How i want the afghan withdrawl to go. Firstly, drag all our pederast junky afghan allies out into the street for execution. After the execution, demand the taliban says "thankyou" or we leave and nuke it to glass after giving them all 3 days to evacuate and be refugees in Syria.

  9. #8 | Top
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Location
    Hooterville by the sea
    Posts
    16,757
    Thanks
    2,421
    Thanked 9,278 Times in 6,850 Posts
    Groans
    1,100
    Groaned 480 Times in 450 Posts
    Blog Entries
    6

    Default

    The US will never win a gorilla type war. Our military is designed to destroy standing armies and its war making capabilities. Vietnam, and Afghanistan are such wars.

  10. The Following User Says Thank You to Eagle_Eye For This Post:

    guno (04-18-2021)

  11. #9 | Top
    Join Date
    Sep 2019
    Posts
    1,376
    Thanks
    1
    Thanked 58 Times in 53 Posts
    Groans
    1
    Groaned 9 Times in 9 Posts

    Default

    The only thing stopping a total victory is our heroin habit. We cant have a victory because our enemies and our heroin farmers are the same people. It's better to just do as i say go through and kill all our afghan allies that fail a drug test for heroin. The Taliban learned its lesson about trying to honey trap people more powerful than them. They'll radicalize on extermination of pederast slime that we both want dead or we can kill said pederast slime first and demand thanks for it. If that still comes up short, we cant leave a place like afghanistan alive.

  12. #10 | Top
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Posts
    3,163
    Thanks
    892
    Thanked 400 Times in 358 Posts
    Groans
    51
    Groaned 98 Times in 85 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Flanders View Post
    Make no mistake about it, the war in Afghanistan has always been a United Nations war. A military defeat is their defeat.
    Great article, but I am sticking with “. . . a United Nations war.”

    Commentary

    As if there were any doubts about the animosity directed by the Left against the United States of America, President Joe Biden’s announcement that all American troops will be withdrawn from George W. Bush’s ill-conceived and thoroughly wasteful war in Afghanistan by Sept. 11, 2021 finally ought to dispel them.

    Think they picked that date out of a hat? Think again.

    Thanks to Biden’s absurdly long position at the D.C. trough (he was first elected to the Senate in 1972), this president will now have the distinction of being in Washington for two of America’s greatest defeats: the hasty and panicked retreat from Vietnam in 1975 (from which war Biden received no less than five draft deferments and never served a day in uniform) and the war in Afghanistan that should have been over a month or so after it started, and not twenty years later.

    That Biden has finally done the right thing is almost accidental. Lunch Pail Joe, the “fighter” for the little guy, has in reality never been in a fight he actually wanted to win, beginning in 1973, when the U.S. pulled its forces from South Vietnam in the wake of the “peace with honor” Paris Peace Accords signed by Richard Nixon and welcomed at the time by the communists of North Vietnam as a sign of their inevitable victory. Since then, the opportunistic but fundamentally characterless Biden has simply drifted with his party, ever leftward.

    War on the Constitution

    Indeed, the only war for which he’s shown any enthusiasm is the one he’s currently fronting: the battle against the constitutionally ordained government of the U.S.A, and its replacement with a cultural-Marxist junta of wokesters determined to overturn both the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

    From the Vietnam era to the present, “liberals” have been pleased to use the protections of our founding documents—freedom of speech, assembly, faith, a bar on unreasonable search and seizure, the right against self-incrimination—only as long as they were useful.

    Now, with victory heaving into view beyond the barbed-wire fences of official Washington, marred only by the cloud of the midterm elections of 2022, those basic rights can be as easily dispended with as the Paris Peace Accords: a means to an end. And when your movement’s motto is “by any means necessary,” well, you can figure out what comes next.

    In fact, former President Trump had already announced a May 1 target deadline for withdrawal from the Hindu Kush, part of his campaign to end the Forever Wars bequeathed to him by a bipartisan, decades-old coalition of his predecessors, Bush, Clinton, Bush, and Obama.

    But Biden and his handlers, it seems, just couldn’t resist the symbolic importance of the 20th anniversary of 9/11: as a monument not only to American lack of will to win a battle against superstitious goatherds but also as a celebration of what is viewed in the Islamic world as a triumph for the Taliban (our ostensible enemy) against the Great Satan.

    The importance of dates and anniversaries looms large in Islam. Sept. 11, for example, marked the day of the Muslim assault on the gates of Vienna in 1683, a decisive battle that broke the Turkish incursion into central Europe and began the long rollback of Islamic conquest in eastern Europe.

    The collapse of the World Trade Center and the damaging of the Pentagon was payback for that defeat, which still aggrieves many Muslims, and the opening of a new front in a clash of civilizations that extends back to the 7th century, A.D., and includes the Christian reconquest of the Holy Land in 1099 during the First Crusade, the fall of Constantinople to the Turks in 1453, and the sieges of Malta and Szigetvar in 1565-66.

    Propaganda Victory

    What Biden means to do, therefore, is to announce to the Muslim ummah that 9/11 was a great and glorious victory for Islam, and in acknowledgement the “Franks” (radical Muslims still employ the terminology of the Crusades) will formally admit defeat exactly 20 years later and march away with their tails between their legs.

    It’s a stunning propaganda victory for the inheritors of Osama bin Laden’s war on the West and a craven and humiliating defeat for the meals-on-wheels, three-cups-of-tea American military, which now hasn’t won a war since 1945, and which is in no position to stop either the Chinese or the Russians on a field of fight.

    That’s not because Americans can’t fight. Two hundred and forty-five years ago, on April 19, 1776 the militias at Lexington and Concord, Mass., took up arms in defense of the colonies’ right to self-determination, shedding the first blood of what became the Revolutionary War.

    The proximate cause was a British attempt to confiscate American arms and military supplies (if you think the second amendment was written to protect hunters, think again). The end result was a free and independent nation that later fought a bloody civil war over slavery and secession; intervened in the Great War to deliver victory to Britain and France; and defeated Imperial Japan less than four years after the sneak attack on Pearl Harbor.

    Americans can fight, all right; it’s just that we won’t. Korea, which was nominally fought under UN auspices, ended in stalemate but at least our troops came home with honor. Vietnam, a brainchild of two Democrat presidents, was fought to keep fighting, never to win. And it was during this conflict that Baby Boomers began to come of age, opposing the draft (sensibly, as it turned out, since neither Johnson nor Nixon had a plan for victory), and turning hard Left under the tutelage of Communist philosopher Herbert Marcuse and other members of the Frankfurt School, who had recently been rescued from Hitler and transplanted to Columbia and other major American universities.

    Those same Boomers rioted in the streets of Chicago in 1968 against LBJ’s vice president, Hubert Humphrey, grabbed the 1972 nomination for peacenik George McGovern, engineered Nixon’s ouster less than two years after one of the greatest electoral landslides in history, and have been in the driver’s seat, both culturally and politically, ever since.

    Since JFK dragged the country into the Big Muddy of Vietnam, no American president except for Ronald Reagan knew how to articulate the only meaningful objective of war: “We win, they lose.” The GOP nominee in 2024 would be wise to keep that in mind—no matter who the enemy is, foreign or domestic.


    Withdrawal From Afghanistan Timed to Humiliate US
    Michael Walsh
    April 19, 2021 Updated: April 20, 2021

    https://www.theepochtimes.com/withdr...source=partner
    The basic test of freedom is perhaps less in what we are free to do than in what we are free not to do. It is the freedom to refrain, withdraw and abstain which makes a totalitarian regime impossible. Eric Hoffer

  13. #11 | Top
    Join Date
    Jan 2018
    Location
    Digging up your yard.
    Posts
    8,658
    Thanks
    1,487
    Thanked 1,394 Times in 1,136 Posts
    Groans
    3,120
    Groaned 154 Times in 151 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    We "won" the war almost a decade ago and should have gotten out then.

  14. #12 | Top
    Join Date
    Sep 2019
    Posts
    1,376
    Thanks
    1
    Thanked 58 Times in 53 Posts
    Groans
    1
    Groaned 9 Times in 9 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Big Money Dolla View Post
    We "won" the war almost a decade ago and should have gotten out then.
    But there's so many democrats that want their own bacha bazi dope farming slave. How can you expect democrats to do it themselves?

  15. #13 | Top
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Posts
    3,163
    Thanks
    892
    Thanked 400 Times in 358 Posts
    Groans
    51
    Groaned 98 Times in 85 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Big Money Dolla View Post
    We "won" the war almost a decade ago and should have gotten out then.
    To Big Money Dolla: The U.S. went there for the wrong reason:

    Quote Originally Posted by Flanders View Post
    Failed foreign policy in Afghanistan is one more reason Biden was never right about anything. Remember that then-Senator Joe Biden was a leading advocate for fighting a United Nations war in Afghanistan.

    Lest I be misinterpreted, Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Iraq all met the preemptive war of self-defense criterion. In short: War policy based on what the United Nations dictates is the problem —— not wars of self-defense. Biden was always too stupid to know the difference.
    The basic test of freedom is perhaps less in what we are free to do than in what we are free not to do. It is the freedom to refrain, withdraw and abstain which makes a totalitarian regime impossible. Eric Hoffer

  16. #14 | Top
    Join Date
    Jan 2018
    Location
    Digging up your yard.
    Posts
    8,658
    Thanks
    1,487
    Thanked 1,394 Times in 1,136 Posts
    Groans
    3,120
    Groaned 154 Times in 151 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Flanders View Post
    To Big Money Dolla: The U.S. went there for the wrong reason:



    I agree, we should have dropped freedom on the taliban relentlessly and left the country in further ruins than it already is then left.

  17. #15 | Top
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Posts
    3,163
    Thanks
    892
    Thanked 400 Times in 358 Posts
    Groans
    51
    Groaned 98 Times in 85 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Big Money Dolla View Post
    I agree, we should have dropped freedom on the taliban relentlessly and left the country in further ruins than it already is then left.
    To Big Money Dolla: First take a closer look at Biden and Stalin.

    In 1945 President Truman casually mentioned the atomic bomb to Stalin. At the time, Stalin was clueless about the success of the Manhattan Project. Biden would have told Stalin everything he did not know.

    In September of 1949 Soviets detonated their first atomic bomb. Considering the state of the Soviet Union at the end of WW II it is highly unlikely the German scientists the Soviets spirited out of Germany could have gotten the bomb so quickly without the help they got from American traitors. Even the help provided by captured German scientists would not account for such a rapid success in a war-torn country.

    When America was the only country with the atom bomb it was, in effect, the lone super power until American traitors handed so much material to the Soviet Union allowing the Soviets to build a bomb decades before they could have done it on their own. After WWII ended, the Soviets occupied Afghanistan. It was Truman who told Stalin to hit the road in 48 hours —— or else. Stalin got the nuclear message and departed from Afghanistan real quick. If Biden was president he would have told Stalin to stay as long as he liked.

    Now Put China Joe Biden in perspective.


    [Editor's note: CNSNews.com first published this piece in 2011, when President Barack Obama ordered the U.S. military to intervene in Libya's civil war without seeking or gaining authorization from the U.S. Congress.]

    (CNSNews.com) -After studying the constitutional language governing the use of military force and the debates that the Framers had on the issue, Joe Biden determined that the Founding Fathers had vested the power to authorize even the limited use of military force in the Congress not the president---unless it was necessary for the president to act swiftly to repel an attack on the United States or to rescue U.S. citizens.

    Biden derided the opposite position—that the president could use military force without congressional authorization—as a “monarchist” view of presidential power.

    That was in 1998, however, when Biden was in the Senate.

    Today, Biden serves as vice president to a commander in chief who has just committed the U.S. military to an action in Libya that was authorized by the U.N. Security Council but was never even so much as debated in the U.S. Congress let alone put to a vote.

    Nor has the president argued that the aim of the military action in Libya is to repel an imminent attack on the United States or rescue U.S. citizens.

    “The rationale for vesting the power to launch war in Congress was simple,” Biden said in a Senate speech delivered on July 30, 1998. “The Framers' views were dominated by their experience with the British King, who had unfettered power to start wars. Such powers the Framers were determined to deny the President.”

    Article 1, Section 8, Clause 11 of the Constitution says: “The Congress shall have power … To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water.”

    After summarizing this language, the debate over it at the Constitutional Convention and the treatment of it by Presidents George Washington and John Adams and the early Supreme Court, Biden determined it was impossible to conclude anything other than that the president could not use force without prior congressional authorization unless it was necessary to “repel a sudden attack.”

    Indeed, this was exactly the language used at the Constitutional Convention by James Madison and Elbridge Gerry when they offered a successful amendment to the draft Constitution—which, as originally written, would have granted Congress alone the power to “make war.”

    “Mr. [James] Madison and Mr [Elbridge] Gerry moved to insert ‘declare,’ striking out ‘make’ war; leaving to the Executive the power to repel sudden attacks,” said James Madison’s notes from the Constitutional Convention.

    “Mr Gerry never expected to hear in a republic a motion to empower the Executive alone to declare war,” said Madison notes.

    “Mr. [George] Mason was agst giving the power of war to the Executive, because not safely to be trusted with it; or to the Senate, because not so constructed as to be entitled to it. He was for clogging rather than facilitating war; but for facilitating peace. He preferred ‘declare’ to ‘make,’” said Madison’s notes.

    “On the Motion to insert declare--in place of Make, it was agreed to,” Madison recorded in his notes at the Constitutional Convention.

    In his speech to the Senate in 1998, Biden accurately summarized the notes of the Constitutional Convention.

    “The original draft of the Constitution would have given to Congress the power to ‘make war.’ At the Constitutional Convention, a motion was made to change this to ‘declare war.’ The reason for the change is instructive,” said Biden.

    “At the Convention, James Madison and Elbridge Gerry argued for the amendment solely in order to permit the President the power ‘to repel sudden attacks,’” said Biden. “Just one delegate, Pierce Butler of South Carolina, suggested that the President should be given the power to initiate war.”

    Citing Federalist No. 69, Biden noted that Alexander Hamilton, who among the Framers was perhaps the greatest champion of a strong executive, argued that the Constitution gave the president the authority to direct the military in action only after that action was authorized by Congress.

    “Even Alexander Hamilton, a staunch advocate of Presidential power, emphasized that the President's power as Commander in Chief would be ‘much inferior’ to the British King, amounting to ‘nothing more than the supreme command and direction of the military and naval forces,’ while that of the British King ‘extends to declaring of war and to the raising and regulating of fleets and armies--all which, by [the U.S.] Constitution, would appertain to the legislature,’” said Biden.

    “Given this,” Biden concluded, “the only logical conclusion is that the framers intended to grant to Congress the power to initiate all hostilities, even limited wars.”

    Biden gave this speech laying out the Framer’s original understanding of the meaning of the war power to explain why he was introducing legislation that would replace the War Powers Resolution, enacted in the 1973, with a new law designed to prevent the president from indefinitely committing U.S. forces to a military engagement without congressional authorization. Biden’s proposed act also spelt out the conditions under which Biden believed the president—using his authority to “repel a sudden attack”—might launch a military action without prior congressional approval.

    “One fundamental weakness of the war powers resolution is that it fails to acknowledge powers that most scholars agree are inherent Presidential powers: to repel an armed attack upon the United States or its Armed Forces, or to rescue Americans abroad,” said Biden in his 1998 speech.

    “My legislation,” he said, “corrects this deficiency by enumerating five instances where the President may use force: (1) To repel attack on U.S. territory or U.S. forces; (2) To deal with urgent situations threatening supreme U.S. interests; (3) To extricate imperiled U.S. citizens; (4) To forestall or retaliate against specific acts of terrorism; (5) To defend against substantial threats to international sea lanes or airspace.”

    Biden did not say that the president could use a UN resolution, as opposed to an act of Congress, to justify military action. In fact, he specifically criticized President Harry Truman—a Democrat—for going to war in Korea after that war had been authorized by the UN Security Council, but not by the U.S. Congress.

    Biden, in fact, accused Truman of taking what Biden called the “monarchist” view of the president’s power to use military force.

    “[W]hat I call the ``monarchist'' view of the war power,” said Biden, is “the thesis that the President holds nearly unlimited power to direct American forces into action.

    “The thesis is largely a product of the Cold War and the nuclear age: the view that, at a time when the fate of the planet itself appeared to rest with two men thousands of miles apart, Congress had little choice, or so it was claimed but to cede tremendous authority to the executive,” said Biden.

    “This thesis first emerged in 1950, when President Truman sent forces to Korea without congressional authorization,” said Biden.

    On June 27, 1950, after North Korea invaded South Korea, the U.N. Security Council passed Resolution 83, recommending “that the Members of the United Nations furnish such assistance to the Republic of Korea as may be necessary to repel the armed attack and to restore international peace and security in the area.”

    That same day, President Truman ordered U.S. forces into Korea without seeking congressional authorization.

    According to the Congressional Research Service, Senate Republican Leader Robert Taft (Ohio) said of Truman's action: “The President simply usurped authority in violation of the laws and the Constitution, when he sent troops to Korea to carry out the resolution of the United Nations in an undeclared war.”


    FLASHBACK--Joe Biden: ‘Framers Intended to Grant Congress Power to Initiate All Hostilities, Even Limited Wars’
    By Terence P. Jeffrey
    March 21, 2011 | 11:49am EDT

    https://www.cnsnews.com/news/article...stilities-even


    President Truman said this about stopping Communist expansion in Korea:


    “We've got to stop the sons of bitches, no matter what, and that's all there is to it.”

    Note the different loyalties between President Truman and China Joe Biden:


    Truman jumped on the Soviet Union’s failure to attend a Security Council meeting; so he took the opportunity to stop Communist expansion by manipulating the United Nations; hence, a U.N. Police Action rather than a declared war. Had the Soviets attended the one and only Security Council meeting they ever missed they would have vetoed Truman’s military opposition to North Korea’s aggression. Today, China has a veto on the permanent Security Council. Trump can be sure the Chicoms will not be missing any SC meetings.

    Incidentally, President Truman was right in stopping Communism, but he was wrong in getting the U.N.’s approval. Every choice Truman had remains the same for President Trump with one exception. Trump has to consider the descendants of Vietnam War traitors in Congress who are much stronger today than their forefathers were in the 1960s.

    https://www.justplainpolitics.com/sh...43#post2779843
    Last edited by Flanders; 04-20-2021 at 09:01 AM.
    The basic test of freedom is perhaps less in what we are free to do than in what we are free not to do. It is the freedom to refrain, withdraw and abstain which makes a totalitarian regime impossible. Eric Hoffer

Similar Threads

  1. McConnell A rapid withdrawal of US forces .."like Vietnam"
    By dukkha in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 11-18-2020, 01:30 PM
  2. Mrs May's EU Withdrawal Agreement ...
    By Tranquillus in Exile in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 54
    Last Post: 03-14-2019, 07:17 AM
  3. Down time = withdrawal
    By Unk in forum Introductions, User Announcements, Suggestions and General Board Discussion
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 09-07-2012, 08:25 PM
  4. Iraq Withdrawal
    By ib1yysguy in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 12-02-2009, 12:58 PM
  5. Elections withdrawal....
    By CanadianKid in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 11-03-2008, 10:56 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Rules

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •